Should a 14-Year-Old Pennsylvania Boy Be Punished for Supposed Desecration of a Statue of Jesus?

[rug]

September 10, 2014
by Hemant Mehta

About a year ago, the Christian service organization Love in the Name of Christ put a statue of a kneeling Jesus on their property in Bedford County, Pennsylvania.

For whatever reason, this past July, a 14-year-old boy in the area thought it would be great idea to take pictures of Kneeling Jesus giving him a mock-blowjob. Then he put those pictures up on Facebook. Because he’s 14 and he thought everyone would find this hilarious.



Well, the police weren’t laughing. Turns out public posts are public. Who knew?

- snip -

Okay. That being said, let’s talk about what he was actually charged with:

The teenager’s juvenile court charge, formally titled “desecration, theft or sale of a venerated object,” is a second-degree misdemeanor in the Pennsylvania Code. The law defines desecration as “defacing, damaging, polluting or otherwise physically mistreating in a way that the actor knows will outrage the sensibilities” of people who learn of the action.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/09/10/should-a-14-year-old-pennsylvania-boy-be-punished-for-supposed-desecration-of-a-statue-of-jesus/

This is the statute:

Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

Title 18 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES

Chapter 55 - Riot, Disorderly Conduct and Related Offenses

Section 5509 - Desecration, theft or sale of venerated objects

§ 5509. Desecration, theft or sale of venerated objects.

(a) Offense defined.--A person commits a misdemeanor of the
second degree if he:

(1) intentionally desecrates any public monument or
structure, or place of worship or burial;

(2) intentionally desecrates any other object of
veneration by the public or a substantial segment thereof in
any public place;

(3) sells, attempts to sell or removes with intent to
sell a veteran's marker as described in section 1913 of the
act of August 9, 1955 (P.L.323, No.130), known as The County
Code. This paragraph shall not apply to the sale of veterans'
markers authorized by statute; or

(4) intentionally receives, retains or disposes of a
veteran's marker or item decorating a veteran's grave knowing
that the item has been stolen, or believing that it has
probably been stolen, unless it has been received, retained
or disposed of with the intent to return it to the owner.

(a.1) Historic burial lots and burial places.--A person
commits a misdemeanor of the first degree if the person
intentionally desecrates a historic burial lot or historic
burial place.

(b) Definitions.--As used in this section, the following
words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this
subsection:

"Desecrate." Defacing, damaging, polluting or otherwise
physically mistreating in a way that the actor knows will
outrage the sensibilities of persons likely to observe or
discover the action.

"Historic burial lot." An individual burial site within a
historic burial place.

"Historic burial place." A tract of land which has been:

(1) in existence as a burial ground for more than 100
years; or

(2) listed in or eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places as determined by the Pennsylvania Historical
and Museum Commission.

(May 4, 2001, P.L.3, No.3, eff. 60 days; Dec. 16, 2003, P.L.233,
No.41, eff. 60 days; Oct. 9, 2008, P.L.1419, No.116, 60 days)

2008 Amendment. Section 2 of Act 116 provided that the
amendment shall apply to offenses committed on or after the
effective date of section 2.
2003 Amendment. Section 2 of Act 41 provided that the
amendment of section 5509 shall apply to offenses committed on
or after the effective date of Act 41.
Cross References. Section 5509 is referred to in section
3307 of this title.

It's one of Pennsylvania's hate crimes. The issue will turn on the whether his actions meet the definition of "desecrate".

[elehhhhna]

1. that's bullshit

idols of all kinds should not have special laws like that.

If he did it to an Allah statue he'd get a parade from the Cons.

[MisterP]

34. an Allah statue?

[littlemissmartypants]

37. LOL. nt

[Fred Sanders]

2. Since the statute was not physically mistreated, charges should be dismissed like right now.

In the statute:

"Desecrate." Defacing, damaging, polluting or otherwise
physically mistreating in a way that the actor knows will
outrage the sensibilities of persons likely to observe or discover
the action.

Who the next day viewing the statute, as opposed to the picture on the internet, would notice anything different about it?

The defence rests.

[rug]

4. That;s the best argument.

BTW I edited to add the photo.

[Fred Sanders]

5. I see. A prosecutor will have a chuckle and tell the charging cop to get a life.

[LiberalAndProud]

3. No. Not even for public nuisance.

Ludicrous. Adolescent humor. Get over it.
Ridiculous.

[BlueJazz]

12. I agree. Big deal. Kids should be allowed to do things that are not cool without everybody...

....freaking out about it and wanting to overly-punish the kid.
If the kid would have actually caused harm to another person...then.. we might have something to worry about.

[The Magistrate]

6. Does Not Seem To Meet The Definition In The Statute, Sir

'"Desecrate." Defacing, damaging, polluting or otherwise
physically mistreating in a way that the actor knows will
outrage the sensibilities of persons likely to observe or
discover the action. '

It seems to require some physical harm to the object, even 'polluting' cannot be read as ritual pollution, but as actually fouling the object in some way.

[Fred Sanders]

8. Beat you to it, and without the 'tude.

[rug]

10. There are two elements to that misdemeanor.

It has the latter but not the former.

[The Magistrate]

15. Since The Act Does Not Meet The Definition Of 'Desecrate', Sir, Any Charge Must Fail

[rug]

17. Yes, it must meet the complete definition, not simply a part of of it.

[okasha]

7. Did the little idiot actually damage the statue?

Just personally, I'd charge him with Felony Stupidity, 1st. degree.

[rug]

13. Hmmm, the article doesn't mention any residue.

[Skittles]

9. falls under 14 year old boys do stupid shit

he has no doubt already learned a lesson from this

[rug]

11. Kick his ass, Skittles!

Faux fellatio is nothing to trifle with.

[Skittles]

14. I WILL KICK HIS FAUX-BLOWN ASS

YES INDEED

[rug]

16. YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKIN ABOUT!

That's all the punishment he needs to set him on the right path.

[Fred Sanders]

18. I noticed you said these are hate crimes. They are not. Hate crimes relate to people, not statues.

[rug]

19. This statute directly relates to people.

The property damage is the instrumentality of the hate.

The purpose of the criminal act is to inflict damage "in a way that the actor knows will outrage the sensibilities of persons likely to observe or discover the action."

Without that provision it would be a simple criminal mischief or vandalism property crime.

Think swastikas on a synagogue.

[Fred Sanders]

22. The FBI has a definition that concentrates on motive as the basis of a hate crime...

"A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias.

For the purposes of collecting statistics, Congress has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.”

Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties."

So unless it can be proven the teen had a bias against Christianity, as proven by posting the picture with that bias in mind, as opposed to the actual physical act depicted in the picture that was posted, it is not a hate crime.

[rug]

25. Research the legislative history of this Pennsylvania statute. It is a hate crime.

Whether or not a particular act can be proven to violate this statute (and a mens rea can be inferred from other evidence), the statute itself remains a codified hate crime.

[ZombieHorde]

23. Does Jesus hate oral sex?

I don't understand how this is a hate crime.

[rug]

29. If he stuck a dildo in the statue's mouth, thus damaging it, do you think it would be a hate crime?

What about these?













http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2010/03/02/more-atheist-billboard-vandalization/

[ZombieHorde]

30. The second one looks like a hate crime, I don't know about the others.

Do you think the people who belong to the church in the OP should feel threatened by the actions of the teenager?

[rug]

31. The organization in the story, though religious, is not a church.

This is its website:

http://www.loveincofbedfordcounty.org/

Do you think they had this reaction to the photos?

the actor knows will outrage the sensibilities of persons likely to observe or discover the action.

BTW if they were threatened for their religion it would be terroristic threats, a different (hate) crime.

[ZombieHorde]

49. Oops, I thought it was a church,

but that doesn't change my confusion as to why this would be a hate crime. A Church can go to funerals and hold up signs that say "God Hates Fags," without committing a hate crime. People can scream at women going to into an abortion clinic without being accused of a hate crime. Militias can roam the border and harass people without being accused of a hate crime. Is pretending to have sex with a statue even close to those things? I don't think so.

[rug]

50. Those are good points.

Those are arguably hate crimes. Depending on the facts, the First Amendment may be a defense, depending on the circumstances. The First Amendment doesn't protect hate speech but there is a fine line. WBC has either been denied permits outright or moved to a free speech zone. The clinic cases have also turned on where the protests are taking place in relation to the access points.

As to the militias, what they're doing is way worse than hate crimes. They should be prosecuted under RICO.

[AtheistCrusader]

53. It sounds like we're all speaking the same language here.

I'm not sure why you and I are disagreeing, as the 'Militia' assholes are not just threatening people, but as you allude to the RICO statutes, they are profiting off it too...*

I have found, observing hate crime related trials in the past, that the hate speech crosses the line into a crime, the same way speech between two individuals can cross the line into a criminal threat.

*edit: And conspiracy, and other unlawful things

[rug]

57. I replied below. I think we've already met and now are walking past each other.

[AtheistCrusader]

40. I see no correlation, because those are all damaged private property.

Is this desecration?



Or this?



This?

?w=470

Or this?



Undoubtedly, McD's corporate would very much disapprove of any of these images.

[rug]

44. Is Ronald McDonald a protected class under the law?

Are you seriously equating that to swastikas on graves?

[AtheistCrusader]

47. No, I explained quite clearly.

I rejected the items you listed, because they all include damaged property. Spray painting on those graves, whether swastika's, or happy faces, is property damage.

Are Christians a protected class, that would be somehow threatened by a symbolic blowjob? Because the swastika on a jewish grave or any identifiable jewish community element, could be construed as a threat on top of the property damage.

Image in the OP contains no threat, and there is so far, no indication of property damage.

Hell, the McD's photos I posted could be considered WORSE than the image in the OP, because it could reasonably be construed to damage McDonald's brand identity/trademark.

[rug]

48. Actually, religions, as are gender, race and nationality, are protected classes under the law.

As I explained, threats are not an element of hate crimes, unless the threat is made on a class. What makes it a hate crime is the hate itself directed at a protected group.

The difference between a happy face on a tombstone, and a swastika, is the hate. It is punishable under the law.

Sorry you are more offended by the harm to a corporate logo than a swastika on a grave.

[AtheistCrusader]

51. Again, that's not what I conveyed.

The swastika is both property damage AND a threat. I find that much worse than the corporate logo fuckery. Thank you for asking before slinging that mud.

"The difference between a happy face on a tombstone, and a swastika, is the hate. It is punishable under the law."

Hate is not punishable by law. It's what you do with it. Hate crimes are, in most states, defined as threats, harassment, or physical harm or property damage, directed against a protected class. It is important to criminalize this, specifically, because when someone does it, they aren't just harming the direct victim, but they are essentially engaged in an act of terrorism against the entire class. Any member of that class could reasonably be expected to feel 'as if they are next', or that they have to modify behavior, move, hide, acquire additional security, etc.

I hate the westboro Baptist church. They are a religious group. I am not committing a crime when I say I hate those sad, loser, pathetic examples of humanity. There is more to it, than 'hate'. There is an overt mechanism, and the terroristic nature of the threat.

There is a difference between saying 'I hate bob', punching Bob, and saying 'I hate everyone in (bob's protected class)' and then attacking bob as an example/threat/attack upon the protected class.

Maddow explains it much more eloquently than I can.

This isn't her best, most in-depth coverage of the idea, but I can't find the specific video I am thinking of. When I was younger, I didn't appreciate the purpose behind hate crime legislation. I get it now.

[rug]

56. This is exactly what I've been saying.

Hate crimes are, in most states, defined as threats, harassment, or physical harm or property damage, directed against a protected class.

Note the word "or". Not all hate crimes require threats. The Pennsylvania statute reproduced above shows the requirement for that specific statute.

That said, I can't see how you think a Ronald McDonald statue is remotely relevant.

Thanks for the video. Matthew Shepard's murder shone a light on the need, and purpose, of hate crime laws.

[AtheistCrusader]

60. I felt 'threat' was the 'least bad' condition of the group.

So I was attempting to convey it as a bare minimum, that meets the bar for legal action.

But the threatening nature of a hate crime is the mechanism that makes it worse than Party A injuring Party B. There is an implicit threat along with, even the personal injury aspect, when it is targeted at Party B, because Party B is a member of some protected class. Every member of that class can be reasonably considered to have just cause to be afraid for their safety.


I think the McD's statute is relevant to the original image in the first post. None of the images I supplied contain a threat, anything I could define as harassment, no apparent property damage, and clearly no personal injury. It doesn't even express hate, without accompanying threat/harassment. Maybe if he did it every sunday, during services at the nearby church or something, it could be construed as harassment.

If anything, the McD's images could be considered worse than the Jesus/Blowjob thing, because there is the possibility that McD's could demonstrate actual monetary damages and they own that trademark. Does anyone own the image/concept of jesus? Could anyone demonstrate damages from someone impugning, mocking, or otherwise trashing that image? Trademark dilution cases are notoriously fickle, whether free speech/parody/or outright damage, so I'm playing with fire a bit here, using it as an example, but hopefully you see the meaning at least.

[rug]

62. OK, I've got to go to my daughter's field hockey game.

See you later.

[AtheistCrusader]

63. No worries, have a great game.

Just killing time, myself.

[Arkansas Granny]

20. If the statue sustained no damage, there should be no charges.

It was a silly prank, that's all.

[Louisiana1976]

27. Agree wholeheartedly.

[exboyfil]

21. This is a lot like putting a noose

on the statue of James Meredith. In that case the students were not charged with a crime, and I don't think they were suspended from the school. The local fraternity which they belonged though, even though it took immediate action, was closed by the national fraternity.

Anybody wanting this boy to be charged should also be asked about the Meredith statue.

[ZombieHorde]

24. I'm not exactly sure why this bothers people.

Sex is dirty and Jesus is clean?

[TBF]

26. Insane. He's a kid -

this is what they do. At the most I'd blame his parents for not keeping some sort of eye on his Facebook account ...

[Louisiana1976]

28. Good idea.

[brooklynite]

32. Absolutely...

...because it's not his statue to play with.

[No Vested Interest]

33. Let his parents handle this. If I were them, I'd have the photo

blown up and hung in his room where he must see it every day and night.

Then see how funny he thinks his prank is after six months.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

35. I'd say it's void for vagueness.

"object of veneration by the public or a substantial segment thereof"????


"Likely to outrage the sensibilities"???

No definitions there that are usable. A tacky prank, but not damaging to the statue.

[cbayer]

36. Punished by his parents, yes, but this doesn't seem to break the law.

[yeoman6987]

54. I 100 percent agree

Parents decide further decisions.

[littlemissmartypants]

38. NO! But Jesus should be punished for leading him astray.

Are there no grown up persons responsible?
Make the kid read the Koran or another so called holy book of choice, for an hour. If he can read. That'll teach him.

More wasted time and money for the love of pure ignorance.

His brain hasn't even finished growing. He's feeling macho and irreverent. If those are crimes, throw the book at him. Any big fat old "holy" book will do.
Just don't hit the silly boy with it. His ego is so puffed up now, from all the attention he has been getting over this, it might hurt his feelings.

Chinese Proverb
Without fools there would be no wisdom.

The law does not apply in this case.

That is my not at all humble opinion and I stand by it.

Love, Peace and Shelter.
~ littlemissmartypants

[edhopper]

39. The kid should just say

it was conceptual art, then he's protected by the First Amendment.

[okasha]

41. "Conceptual" has four syllables.

That's two more than he can probably handle.

[Goblinmonger]

42. And we know he's unintelligent how, exactly?

Plenty of really intelligent artists make blowjob jokes.

[okasha]

45. No evidence kid's an artist.

Plenty of evidence he's dumb.

[AtheistCrusader]

52. "Stop pretending Art is hard"

Just limit yourself to three chords, and do not practice daily

[EvilAL]

68. heh, evidence.

[Gelliebeans]

65. Lol n/t

[No Vested Interest]

46. Lol! nt

[MineralMan]

43. Punished? Yes, but by his parents.

What I'd do is hand him a squeegee and a bucket and make him go to that place and wash all of the windows there. I can't see any reason to charge him with a crime, though. The kid's 14. 14-year-old kids are not known for their good sense about what's funny and what's not.

It's a statue. He didn't damage it or desecrate it in any way. He posed for a stupid Facebook photo doing something juvenile, tasteless, and moronic. Should be a crime. But, if I were his father, he'd be doing something that let him know that a lesson needs to be learned about behavior.

[yeoman6987]

55. Ding ding ding!

Winning post! Break out the bucket and squeegee. Parents decide all punishments!

[pinto]

58. Prank by a 14 year old? No physical damage done to the statue? Doesn't seem one for a court.

This is one for he and his parents. Hopefully they'll note that what gets put up on facebook doesn't necessarily stay just among his facebook friends or go away, for that matter.

[Cleita]

59. No. It's a statue and a living Jesus wouldn't have asked for that kind of

punishment to his statue. Also, when I was in Catholic school sometimes the statues of saints got some prankish treatments, you know mustaches, Groucho glasses, the Virgin Mary with a beaded purse. Yes, the perps were sought out and punished, but even the nuns saw it as stupid pranks. Out and out vandalism was turned over to the police.

[unblock]

61. under the statute, he appears to be guilty. but the real question is...

is the law constitutional and in any event is it wise for police to prosecute.


"Desecrate." Defacing, damaging, polluting or otherwise
physically mistreating in a way that the actor knows will
outrage the sensibilities of persons likely to observe or
discover the action.

i think this certainly constitutes "physically mistreating in a way that the actor knows will
outrage the sensibilities of persons likely to observe or discover the action."

note that the fact that the statue wasn't damaged and the fact that people only found out due to his posting the picture doesn't work as a defense. it's still desecration even if the act is only learned about later.


having said that, i think the definition in the statute is problematic, and imho unconstitutionally so, because it rather tramples on freedom of speech and expression. there's no constitutional right to freedom from being offended. i don't see how you can justify, constitutionally speaking, curtailing a protected freedom (of speech) in favor of an unprotected freedom (from offended sensibilities).

[rug]

66. Good questions.

My vote is the statute is constitutional but he shouldn't be prosecuted because 1) he didn't violate all the elements of the statute and 2) it's a very stupid case to bring to court, even juvenile court.

[abelenkpe]

64. Nope

[LeftishBrit]

67. Nasty idiotic behaviour but not a crime

He deserves to be punished, as in grounded or something similar by his parents; but not by the law.

If he had caused actual damage, it would come under vandalism, but not in this case.